Kerala

Kottayam

cc/09/14

PJ.George - Complainant(s)

Versus

George Joseph(Secretory) - Opp.Party(s)

30 Dec 2009

ORDER


Report
CDRF, Collectorate
consumer case(CC) No. cc/09/14

PJ.George
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

George Joseph(Secretory)
President,Melukavu Service co-operative
Presedent, Melukavu service co-operative bank,3183
VM. Mathew
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Bindhu M Thomas 2. Santhosh Kesava Nath P

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Present

Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President

Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member.

 

CC.No.14/09

Wednesday, the day of 30th, December, 2009.


 

Petitioner: P.J.George

Puthupadickal, Melukavu P.O.

Kottayam District.

(Adv.K.P.Subair)

Vs.

Opposite parties: 1. Melukavu Service Co-operative

Bank Ltd.No. 3183 rep. By

George Joseph, Secretary

Melukavu Service Co-operative

Bank Ltd. No. 3183

Melukavumattom, Kottayam Dist.

2. Melukavu Service Co-opertive

Bank Ltd. No. 3183 rep. By

Sunny Mathew, President

Melukavu Service Co-operative

Bank, Melukavumattom

Kottayam District.

3. V.M. Mathew

Vadekkemulanjal, Melukavumattom.

P.O. Kottayam District

(Ex-Secretary) Melukavu Service

Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 3183.

(Adv.M.C.Augustin)


 

O R D E R

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Member.


 

The case of the complainant is as follows:

He availed loan from the opposite party co-operative bank by mortgage the landed property which he was enjoyed possession and title over 91 cents of property in partition deed No.4547/1981: The entire loan amount was remitted by the complainant

-2-

along with interest as and when directed by the opposite party Bank. Thereafter the opposite party Bank had issued release deed in favour of the complainant vide No.247/2003 and 1497/2003 dated 13/1/2003 and 26/3/2003 respectively. After getting the release deed from the opposite party Bank, the complainant approached the Bank for get back the partition deed No. 4547/81 which was already pledge in bank at the time of getting the loan amount. The complaint approached the opposite party for several times for get back the partition deed No. 4547/81: But the opposite party has not take any steps for get back the partition deed No.4547/81. The complainant made a complaint before the Secretary Co-operative Department on 30/7/2004 and the same was made over the Inspector Pala co-operative Department for conducting an enquiry on 6/11/04. But the enquiry was conducted at Asst. Registrar's Office Palai and not at the opposite party bank which the documents kept in the bank. There was no favourable decision was taken by the opposite party on the basis of the several complaints made by the complainant before the various authorities. The Joint registrar co-operative Department, Kottayam had pass an order in C.R.P. (1) 1530/06 dated 13.3.06 in favour of the complainant. Thereafter on 11/8/06 the complainant applied for loan on the basis of pledging the document for gahan loan from the opposite party bank as an amount of Rs.50,000/- and the same was sanctioned by the opposite party bank. But the complainant had closed the entire loan amount with interest on 14/9/07. Thereafter on 12/5/08 the complainant applied another loan on the basis of pledging the documents for gahan loan from the opposite party bank as an amount of Rs.50,000/-, but the opposite party did not sanctioned the loan to the complainant stating that the complainant's title deed (Partition Deed) was not in the bank. Thereafter also complainant made several complaints before the higher authorities of the opposite parties. But the complainant has not get the reliefs which he sought for. Hence this complaint. The complainant approach this forum for get a compensation of Rs.11,04,500/-.


 

-3-

The notices were served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version. The version of Ist and 2nd opposite parties are contending as follows.

The complainant has not entrusted the alleged partition deed with the opposite party bank. The complainant at the time of taking loan the partition deed has shown to the opposite party and returned to him. The complainant was a higher official of the registration department and he has not pledge or entrusted the partition deed with the opposite party bank. The opposite party has sanctioned the loan on the basis of the mortgage deed executed in favour of the bank. On the basis of the order dated 13.3.06 C.R.P. (1) 1530/06 the opposite party acted and informed the complainant that the certified copy of the partition deed was ready with the opposite party and the same was accepted immediately. Thereafter the certified copy was send it to the complainant through post. The opposite party bank has sanctioned the loan of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in August 2006 was on condition that the original partition deed was produced immediately after accepting the loan amount. But the complainant has not produced the partition deed. Thereafter another application for loan was submitted by the complainant on 12.5.2008. Then the opposite party bank has not sanctioned the loan due to the non-complince of the conditions of the loan (ie. production of partition deed). There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

The version of 3rd opposite party is contending as follows: The 3rd opposite party was the Ex-Secretary of the Melukavu Service Co-operative bank and 3rd opposite party was retired from service on 30/9/1996 ie nearly 12 years ago.The 3rd opposite party handed over the charges of secretary of the bank to the Asst. Secretary (opposite party 1) on 30/9/1996. At the time of retirement the opposite party 3 entrusted all the documents which were in his possession to the Ist opposite party. The 3rd opposite party handed over the documents to the Ist opposite party in the presence of the president of the bank ie. opposite party 2. The complainant himself availed more than one loan from the bank

-4-

even after the retirement of 3rd opposite party on 27/12/1996 the bank sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant and on 11/8/2006 the opposite party bank sanctioned another loan of Rs.50,000/-. Both the loans were sanctioned to the complainant based on original title deed which according to the complaintant is missing now. The sanctioning of loans to the complainant even after the retirement of 3rd opposite party is clearly shows that the original of the title deed under disputed was in the bank at the time of retirement of 3rd opposite party. Hence opposite party 3 was in no way connected to this case and opposite party 3 is not liable to pay any cost or compensation to the complainant. It is admitted that opposite party 3 is a member of the present Board of Directors of the bank elected on 28/10/06. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 3. Hence the opposite party 3 may be excluded from this case.

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as exhibits A1 to A11 and he was examined as PW1. The Ist opposite party filed proof affidavit for and on behalf of himself and for the 2nd opposite party and he was examined as DW1. One document produced by the opposite party 1 and the same was marked as exhibit B1.

Heard both sides. Both sides filed argument notes: We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties has not returned the partition deed which was entrusted with the bank at the time of taking loan from the opposite party bank. According to him even after closing the entire loan amount opposite parties has issued release deed in favour of the complainant, but the opposite parties has not returned the original partition deed No. 4547/81. The Ist and 2nd opposite parties has taken a contention that the complainant was not entrusted the original partition deed No.4547/81 for obtaining the loan from the opposite parties bank. According to them without receiving the original partition deed the opposite parties sanctioned the loan for the complainant only on the basis of mortgage deed executed by him in favour of the bank. So, accordingly entire loan amount was closed by the complainant and the release deed was executed in favour of

-5-

the complainant by the opposite party bank. The 3rd opposite party admits in his version that the complainant has entrusted the partition deed with the bank and opposite party 3 was the then secretary of the opposite party bank. Moreover retired from the service 3rd opposite party is the present member of Direct or Board of the opposite party bank . The partition deed was entrusted with the opposite party bank for obtaining loan from them was proved by the admission of the opposite party 3 in their version. So we have no reasons to dis-believe the version of the 3rd opposite party. However the claim of the complainant is exhorbitant. The complainant is entitled only for the actual loss sustained to him due to the negligent act of the opposite parties not for the remotness of damages. Moreover the opposite parties has not adduced any evidence to show that had not receive the partition deed of the complainant. Here the complainant has sustained some inconveniences and hardships due to the negligent act of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Both the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. So we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.

In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. (1) We direct the opposite party 1 and 2 to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for inconveniences and hardships and pay Rs.2500/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.


 

Sri.K.N.Radhakrishnan Member Sd/-

Sri.Santhosh Kesavanath.P. President Sd/-

Smt.Bindhu M.Thomas Member. Sd/-


 


 


 


 


 

-6-


 

APPENDIX

  1. A1 is the copy of release deed dt.13.1.2003.

  2. A2 is the copy of release deed dt.26/6/2003.

  3. A3 is the copy of order of joint registrar Kottayam dt. 13.3.06.

  4. A4 is the copy of letter dt. 22.5.08.

  5. A5 is the copy of letter dt. 4.8.08.

  6. A6 is the copy of letter dt.4.8.08

  7. A7 is the copy of notice of Joint registrar, Kottayam dt.18./8.08.

  8. A8 is the copy of letter dt. 3.9.08.

  9. A9 is the copy of order of Joint registrar, kottayam dt.21.10.08.

  10. A10 is the copy of reply from koint registrar, kottayam dt. 21.10.08.

  11. A11 is the copy of intimtion from Chief Ministers Grievance Cell dt.30.10.08.

    Documents produced by opposite parties 1 and 2.

  12. B1 is the copy of intimation from joint registrar, kottayam dt. 14.12.08.


 

By Orders,


 

Senior Superintendent.

Kgr/5 copies.


 

     


 




......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P